Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Shocking Display of Power


Monday, Jan. 23, in a shocking display of power, Kerry Miller ordered three different departments to send out teams to remove all Vote NO on C signs. The signs disappeared from the city - even many from private property. One woman called city hall and complained that her sign had been removed from her private property and her sign was returned to her. (talk about admission of guilt)



There is a siege mentality in this city. It's them against us. Unfortunately, they are using our tax dollars against us. They are determined, at any cost, to get what they want.

There is no level playing field and they know it. They have the money, the city employees and council members writing editorials. And this from a city who by state law is to take no active part either for or against a ballot measure.

Is this the United States or what?

There are so many illegal acts adding up that there can be no possible outcome but a lawsuit.

21 comments:

  1. Keep the Faith, No on CJanuary 24, 2006 9:07 PM

    Hey, when Steve Aceti spoke at the 1/19/06 Council Meeting, didn't he have to state, for the record, like everyone else, where he resides?

    If the other speakers forget, we are interrupted, breaking our train of thought, for our measly three minutes. We are asked to state our name and place of residence, every time.

    Does anyone have the tape? I saw the televized version, but couldn't tape, can't recall his saying where he lives.

    One thing I've noticed about this corrupt govt. corporation. No checks and balances. Essentially, Council, Manager, act as judge, jury and executioner.

    NO on C. We can make history!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't Tread on MeJanuary 24, 2006 9:16 PM

    Corrupt, bully, Enc. Inc. does not own rights of way. They may maintain the streets, mostly people around here own into the middle of the street. Check with the Assessor, Recorder.

    City should not be taking anyone's signs. The Encinitas Taxpayers Association's members went to a lot of trouble to have those printed, to put them out. We are not paying our public servants to trample on our rights.

    When Aceti talks about campaign of misinformation, he has got it backwards. We notice that a lot with the City. They twist things around, whining they have been "targeted" for a lawsuit, when they did not follow California Constitutional law, and still are not.

    Maggie Houlihan made some big errors in judgment when she came out in today's Community Forum. She should be neutral on this, and should not use the onus of her office to promote a ballot measure, just as Christy Guerin and Stocks should not have on Prop C. History will repeat itself.

    No on C.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1) You don't have say were you live. Just your name.
    2) The city does have ordinances on signs in the right of way. They are on the books. Now, the question is, does captain blighty have a plan to give us back our property rights and let us place our signs on our property?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maggie did make an error on this one and it may be the basis of law suit, or at least more evidence for one. Interesting that she understood that she should not campaign against prop A, but screwed up on this one.
    My take is that Kerry Miller understands that she is not the brightest of the bunch, and knew that she could be convinced to champion an illegal tax. I actually feel sorry for her.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Looking for answersJanuary 25, 2006 9:15 AM

    Steve Aceti obviously reads this blog. Do you think he will have the guts to answer some of the questions, or is he hiding under a rock?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It looks like Frank Dudek bailed out. If you look at the yes on C web site, Marco and Steve are the last men standing. Guess its now a group of 2!
    Frank seems smart enough to understand that city leaders (used loosely) only wanted to use him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If the clean water tax is really for the library why didn't they just call it the new library tax?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why not have a debate?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Giving our feedback in this blog is the debate.

    One would think that the public hearings on the issue were to engender discussion, debate, including from and by the public.

    One would be wrong, because Enc. Inc. is a bully. They (Council, Manager Miller, Sabine & Morrison, wicked attorneys) force their agenda, their will, on us by tying their BS, and us, up with a pretty bow, as suggested in a previous comment.

    In this case, a spoonful of sugar won't make the stormdrain effluent, go down. Deceitful ballots, misrepresented votes, do not add up to "consent of the taxpayers," as mandated by Calif. Constitution.

    NO on C, for victory.

    ReplyDelete
  10. missing signs of the timesJanuary 25, 2006 3:48 PM

    Those ordinances, which nobody but city and a select few know about, probably got passed on the consent calendar, without discussion or comment. That is limiting free speech! I thought the signage rule was for commercial purposes, such as billboards, or big election signs. These are regulated, too, even on private property. City can declare you a nuisance for anything it "deems" a violation of its indecipherable law. Ask snidely whiplashers, Sabine & Morrison.

    Why do we see so many election signs in right of ways, for incumbents, in particular? Don't they know any better?

    If Maggie and Christy and Jerome want to come out for Prop A or Prop C, I think they should have the freedom of speech to do so, while not spending taxpayer money, sending obviously promotional "informational" pictorials, clapping, patting staff on the back for doing its job re storm drain maintenance and management. These guys are well paid, out of our dollars for what they do. The public hearings on C, were, for the most part, a farce.

    Just as we all, including Donna Westbrook, and any individual of Jarvis Taxpayer Association should have right to campaign against Prop C, so should this obvious property tax by passed by a 2/3 vote of all residents at the next general election, in June, for the primaries.

    The City is forcing a lawsuit by misinterpreting, wrongly upholding the State Constitution. You are not targeted Maggie, except by your lack of understanding, and negligence in complying with the rule of law, and common courtesy, honoring those of us who put you into office.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve Aceti here,

    People are looking for facts, so here they are:

    I live in Carlsbad and my office is on Second Street in downtown Encinitas.

    The city has very specific regulations concerning the size and proper placement of campaign signs. Code enforecement may have erred with one homeowner, but I doubt very much they are doing anything more than enforcing the sign regulations as they do every election.

    Frank Dudek is still a member in good standing of Encinitas Citizens for a Clean Ocean. Committees need co-chairs to function efficiently - we can't do everything by committee.

    Later

    ReplyDelete
  12. confused, not amusedJanuary 25, 2006 4:38 PM

    I guess Arnold sure came out for his initiatives, this past November, that all failed to pass.

    But in this case there was s specific court order, a stipulated judgment that stated neither Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association, nor the City of Encinitas, the two parties of the lawsuit, should campaign for or against Proposition C.

    In the case of the City Council, and Kerry Miller, City Manager, they give considerable support to the measure by the simple fact of the onus of their office.

    Although Glenn Sabine whispered in her ear to beware, Maggie dismissed his warning, stating boldly, three times into the microphone, "I advocate, I advocate, I advocate." This is not a misquote, Steve Aceti. You are one of the ones twisting the truth. The City is not abiding by the court judgment, an order, or Constitutional Law.

    The facts have not been disputed. Only thing disputed are Steve Aceti's false conclusions, jive, and spin. Even Maggie admits City needs money for other projects. Christy and Jerome admit the City is financially fine, with ample reserves.

    I don't have ample reserves. I can't afford the money charged against me, without equal protection under the law, and without a weighted vote. I can't afford to be deceived by corrupt govt. authority or their paid hacks.

    And Mr. Aceti, you are campaigning in favor of a tax you will not be subject to, nor will many of those voting be subject to. Can't you see how that is inherently unfair? Do you have common sense? Common decency?

    ReplyDelete
  13. much later, steveJanuary 25, 2006 4:50 PM

    Hey, man, you are not cool.

    You should be "just the spin," or
    "just the facts, NOT."

    Did you check out how Carlsbad charges its fee? I'll bet they had at the very least a supermajority of Council vote for the fee, and that it was more fairly weighted.

    Maggie Houlihan, Council Schmember, says in her op ed advocacy, that all other cities around here charge the storm drain fee/tax. She leaves out the details of how it was implemented. She is a target, all right. Ask any clown.

    And what about that clown's right of free speech, Maggie? Your group pulled off her wig, and threw it in the lumberyard fountain, pushed the clown, roughly. If our former mayor, Sheila Cameron had done that, Bossy Pants Christy Guerin, current head honcho, would have sic’ed her fuzz bro's on her, pronto.

    What goes around, eventually comes back to throw a pie in your face.

    NO on C!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just a couple more facts. What is Carlsbad and some other cities charging for the storm water maintenace tax. Some cities are as low as $1 per water meter. During the last election, Code Enforcement picked up campaign signs every Tuesday. That's not what Kerry Miller has them doing for Prop C (which stands for more CASH in the gneral fund).

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve Aceti said, "We all moved here to enjoy the beach and the ocean," wrong again stevie. A lot of us were born here. I think that's the problem with people like you. Completely out of touch with our town. You don't even live in Encinitas. Where did YOU move from stevie? Go Home ya Kook! & take your fun board with you!

    ReplyDelete
  17. it is my understanding, and being just a plumber i may be wrong, but the Jarvis lawsuit was partially to address the already collected $$ that was on the trash bills. That a vote of the people was necessary to collect any clean water fees AND to justify the fees already collected. Now my question is, if we are voting on the fees already collected, were previously collected fees paid by the city for the city parcels, and were fees paid by other undeveloped parcels with no trash pickup and no water meters. If the answer is NO then why are they being allowed to vote in an election dealing with the return of those fees? Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
  18. it is my understanding, and being just a plumber i may be wrong, but the Jarvis lawsuit was partially to address the already collected $$ that was on the trash bills. That a vote of the people was necessary to collect any clean water fees AND to justify the fees already collected. Now my question is, if we are voting on the fees already collected, were previously collected fees paid by the city for the city parcels, and were fees paid by other undeveloped parcels with no trash pickup and no water meters. If the answer is NO then why are they being allowed to vote in an election dealing with the return of those fees? Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
  19. loves pipes, wave kind, plumbing tooJanuary 28, 2006 10:02 PM

    Hey, just a plumber, our understanding is that we are all entitled, according to the court ordered settlement stipulation, signed by all parties, to put in a claim for the $75.00 already charged. The election is addressing future "fees." (Really parcel taxes)

    When we went in to try to put in a claim, to get a claim form, we were told we'd have to wait until after the election. This is more wrongful spin being put on to the actual facts of the stipulated settlement. City does not want to have to lose that money.

    Donna Westbrook was one of the citizens upon whose behalf Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued. She agrees with our correct interpretation. The settlement judgment is clear. The City (city attorneys) want to fool us because it makes a difference of over $1 million they would have to refund, if we put in claim forms!

    City needs to have the stormdrains in their brains sucked clean.

    Please, get real, be honest Council and City Attorneys. You are accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There are "Yes on C" posters on traffic Stop signs all over town. That is illegal. If you can't put Garage Sale signs or flyers for music gigs on telephone poles of street signs then you can't put up political ones, either. This reminds me of a few years ago when Maggie Houlihan and a friend were caught by the sherrif stealing signs, and in a different City Council run off, Lou Aspell ordered city workers to remove signs of people running against her. They were later discovered behind city hall in the trash dump.

    This is called "selective enforcement".

    Kerry Miller came here with an agenda-his own. He should be fired. Sure, the City Mangers job is to make money for a city, but this guy is off the chart.

    Isn't everyone sick of being treated like children? And isn't veryone sick of the city "crying poor", just like Paul Ecke did? Don't forget that Miller got 2 raises in one year, and the staff got raises as well. How many of you out there get 2 raises a year?

    No on C.

    ReplyDelete
  21. How comes that nobody is asking the right questions?
    The issue is not where Mr. Aceti lives, but who is he working for?
    Mr. Aceti lives in Carlsbad (1258 Plumb Tree Road), a 5 bedrooms BIG A.. house overlooking the ocean paid by all kinds of misused money. I just went to drop off some papers to his "Home-office"

    Do you know that a big chunk of the donation that you deposit every Sunday in SRF basket goes directly to his pocket? Yes, Mr. Aceti not only makes money as a consultant for the city but he actually is and has been full time employee of the Self realization Fellowship Church for more than 8 years. That’s why Calcoast is located at 1133 Second Street, Ste G, building owned by SRF. Check your public records and internet info.

    The church hired him to get an edge over other coastal property owners!
    While everybody has the need to protect their property front from the erosion, SRF has gone to the extreme of illegally hiring Mr. Aceti as a lawyer to do whatever legal or illegal maneuvers needs to be done to reinforce and maintain the sea wall/ revetment at the bottom of the cliff, to protect the temple at any expense, Who cares!!
    Oh, …..The experts sayd that there is not a better way to protect the property but to put a bunch of sand in front of it, no matter if this causes erosion to the neighbors, is screwing up the surf, or kills a bunch of fishes on the reefs. Who cares!!

    Oh, but…. there is a little problem. Sand is expensive, so go ahead Mr. Aceti, please have this suckers of Encinitas to pay for it.
    - Actually, have all the suckers that visit Encinitas to pay for it.
    And there he goes and passes prop 16 (TOT) increasing overnight occupancy taxes to pay for putting more sand on the beach…. in front of the church please…. .

    I can believe it work, So why not?... lets hit this suckers again, now with prop C.
    I disbelieve the church will do things like this.
    Perhaps just a couple rotten apples from within got greedy and decided to sell out to the dark side.

    I can’t believe they would even bother to hire a real lawyer. Mr. Aceti is not even licensed to practice law in CA. I did a search in the CA Bar and he is not listed, he is listed in New York.

    Are you volunteering for SRF While Mr. Aceti is making over 50,000 dlls a year, ON TOP of his six figure income as a Consultant and Executive Director of Cal coast.
    -I want my volunteering time back!

    Conflict of interest? Illegal? Sure, but nobody is asking the right questions..

    So here is the first question:
    Who should be the one putting money on the basket?

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.